M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.)THE above appeal is directed against the order dated 16/8/04 of CDRF, Ernakulam in OP 453/03. The complaint therein was filed by the appellant as complainant against the respondents/opposite parties for getting the post box facility reinstated. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in cancelling the post box facility allowed in favour of the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in cancelling the post box facility allowed to the complainant. It is further contended that the post box facility was withdraw by invoking Clause 55 (3) of the Post Office guide and based on the enquiry conducted by the postal authorities. It is the definite case of the opposite parties that the complainant company is not functioning in the address furnished in its application for getting the post box facility.
(2.)BEFORE the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and the 1st opposite party Post Master, Willington Island was examined as DW1. Exts. A1 to A12 and B1 to B5 documents were also produced and marked from the side of the complainant and opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below accepted the case of the opposite parties and thereby passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint in OP 453/03. Hence the present appeal by the complainant therein.
(3.)WE heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the complainant is the Managing Director of the Saraf Electric Company Private Limited, and that company is in existence and that the opposite parties cancelled the post box facility allotted to the company without affording an opportunity of being heard. So, the appellant/complainant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum and to allow the complaint in OP. 453/03 by ordering reinstatement of the post box facility in the name of the complainant company. On the other hand, the authorized representative of the respondents/opposite parties supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He much relied on Ext.B4 and B5 reports submitted by the postal officials and justified the action of the opposite parties in invoking Clause 55(3) of the post office guide. Thus, the respondents requested for dismissal of the present appeal.
The Points that arise for consideration are: -

1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in withdrawing the post box facility allotted to the complainant company. Saraf Electric Company Private Limited.,?

2) Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16/8/04?